Originally Posted by
bud leon
Unless I'm mistaken there are two recurring themes being repeated here which are (1) that the technology is fatally flawed and/or (2) most contemporary pilots are incompetent. Neither is true. Incidents like this are rare. It's too easy to call out Lion Air's relatively poor safety record and it's more than somewhat Luddite to be suspicious of automation. Despite the very low frequency of incidents, many of you seem to myopically think we are living in some kind of crisis of aviation, possibly because this forum focusses on incidents. The stats don't tell that story.
There is a lot to be learned from this incident, but please stop the drama because it's irrational and unscientific.
Actually this is exceptionally rational, but your correct in that it's not a clear cut case of either pilot skill or automation. To the best of my admitted limited knowledge this is the 1st incident I can recall where a single plane had significant issues across multiple consecutive flights and remained in service and suffered a catastrophic event. So it's really an economic and cultural issue, possibly specific to Lion Air or potentially more wide spread. I realize that planes are routinely dispatched with degraded capabilities but from what I have read here it would seem that many of those who work in the pointy end have expressed dismay (or am I wrong) that the plane was cleared given the nature of the ongoing issues. Once the problem persisted in spite of the swap out how could you "sign off" for a revenue flight? Beyond that I have a lingering suspicion that if/when the CVR is found that the interaction between the engineer/technician and the flight crew might be integral to the accident. From everything I've read here this would already be a very difficult scenario and the addition of a 3rd voice might have added to the confusion, created doubt or distraction that contributed to the end result.